Landmark ruling ends secrecy of family law | The Times

See on Scoop.itPublic Law Children Act Cases

The cloak of secrecy is to be lifted from family courts in a landmark decision giving greater rights to tens of thousands of parents and their children every year.


Judgments determining custody battles, care orders and whether children should be rehomed will in future be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to.

See on

About towardchange

Your ‘Family Rights’ believing in the best interest of children. The issues which are important to me are, children and their families, the injustices to parents, which may occur, because of inadequate information, mistakes or corruption. This is happening every day. every minute and every second.
This entry was posted in Family Law. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Landmark ruling ends secrecy of family law | The Times

  1. forcedadoption says:

    A JOKE,?? The judges will find “compelling reasons” not to publish the judgements of cases that are “dodgy”.Those that are published on Bailii are not likely to be read or understood by the public in any case.The courts will still not be “open” to friends and relatives to attend.Parents will still not be allowed to rush to the media when their children are taken.Injunctions will still be issued to stop parents discussing their cases in public, or even to stop them from contacting their own children under threat of jail.
    The campaign by the Times? Well Camilla Cavendish was very active several years ago in campaigning for reforms including openess of the family courts but since she shared first prize in the Paul Foot award for outstanding journalism we have not heard from her a single peep !

    • towardchange says:

      Parents do rush to the media, but the media hears stories like this all the time. They are not interested. Also the published version of the judgment may not be actually what occurs in the court room. Furthermore parents and friends may not be not allowed in, because they did not seek permission first in the form of an application in the lower court, you just cannot turn up and be expected to be let in. Some of the cases are highly sensitive. The cases tend to start off in a Civil Court and many cases in those courts are not simply heard on anyone can turn up basis.

      Your statement is not really true I have seen with my own eyes family members storm a hearing with permission, then set through the proceedings. Not that it really made any difference, they still lost their family member to adoption.

      Anyway the main point is that this will be the first time that data can be collected about the outcomes of cases and the court is admitting that secrecy is an issue. You can get your judgment and share it and of the most importance that lower courts are now having to publish their judgments, not just a privilege afforded to the higher court. Now in the lower court it will be viewed that a judgment must be produced without a parent/s having to make a request. One step at a time; whist the system is now self protecting.

      As for Camilla Cavendish she has done loads, she is a pioneer. I have found blogs she created over 10 years ago, putting herself on the line. She is one of the first who opened the doors to the fact that child molesters do win sole custody of their children in the family court system. She has earned her dews and I wish many more people do also. There are so many other people who are exposing the secrecy of the family court. Give the lady a break. At least she has moved on and is not here hoodwinking campaigners when really they are dancing with the enemy. Use Camilla’s works and carry the torch instead of wining that she has moved on.

      Forced adoption you need to take out the positives, before you start throwing the negatives, this is just a tip. The only time improvements in the family court system will be to a high standard, is when judges in this system are held accountable for their crimes against children and families, this does happen once in a while and the system is dismantled by removing Cafcass. This a just a view.

      Anyway the secrecy was lifted when parents were allowed to share the reports of experts to an outside body. one step at a time and thanks for commenting.

      • towardchange says:

        ‘In reality, it’s all about the money’.

        The more paperwork they create somebody will be earning, somewhere. The main point is for parents to take advantage of this fact.

  2. forcedadoption says:

    Towards change:- There just ain’t no positives !

    • towardchange says:

      Excuse me forcedadoption for obvious reasons one is unable to take your view seriously. As for Peter Oakes, for one this post is not about the many issues he does highlight and his comments will be marked as spam if he dare ever return to this blog.

      • forcedadoption says:

        Judges already publish their judgements on Bailii (which the public are unaware of) when they are uncontroversial.They will continue to do just that and find “compelling reasons” to conceal injustices just as they do now.When parents whose children have been removed are treated like rape victims ie free to tell their stories in public IF THEY WISH TO then that would be a step forward;Of course the media would be interested once the cloak of anonymity was removed.
        I don’t know of any families successfully storming the courts as you describe “towards change” but most of the parents who phone me daily complain that their own parents and even their partners who are not the parents are routinely excluded from the court and no doubt will continue to be shunned and ignored.
        Christopher Booker,Sue REID and many other journalists still crusade against forced adoption and punishment without crime and one can only hope that Camilla rejoins the fray soon despite the radical change of policy by the times to a pro forced adoption policy when there was a change of editor.

    • towardchange says:

      Forced adoption ‘the cloak of anonymity IS removed’. This confirms again why you are not taken seriously. The many parents you cite, did they confirm they made an application to the courts for permission to attend or be party to the proceedings and their applications are refused?
      You still refuse to answer.

      Booker is also feeding the hysteria; which does help hide the coverups you too often complain of. By always writing ‘I am not allowed to …’
      I did not see Booker publish my story. Many do note Booker is very selective as to what stories he does publish.

      If you do study case law and conduct your own research instead of relying on others and the tabloid press, you will understand NOT all cases come under a blanket of secrecy as you and some of your supporters purport, even the BBC is aware of this.

      Of the prime importance, your own profile is hidden with no information, just a fake name and no photo. Yet, you complain about secrecy. Now please hush and be off with you. All you are doing is scaremongering; which particular bad judges within the family court system do want. Forcedadoption for the reasons outlined, if you do comment further you will be marked as spam also. No offence intended. Camilla is wise profiles like your own are not helping the cause, but hindering it.

      • forcedadoption says:

        What do the judges say,

        1: Lord Justice Thorpe said “There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.”
        2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.
        3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West.
        4: Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court said that other than in exceptional circumstances judges should treat requests to hear cases in closed courts with ‘distaste and concern’. In a blow to ministers, Lord Neuberger said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.

        What has changed with the new guidelines? Well judges will continue to find compelling reasons why dodgy judgements will not be published.Mother whose babies are snatched at birth will continue to be threatened with jail if they dare to complain !Children in care will have laptops and mobiles confiscated to isolate them from family and friends and conversations with visiting parents will be censured so no sexual or physical abuse by fosterers or social workers can be reported by Grandparents are routinely refused entry to hearings without anyone advising them to make the special applications you mention .


      • forcedadoption says:

        Please note ,I am IAN JOSEPHS AND I am not a solicitor or barrister but I do have a law degree from Oxford University and advise hundreds of parents every year (free of charge) on how to fight and sometimes win

        against social services . Right or wrong,just as everyone is entitled to a lawyer to defend them ,everyone is entitled to advice and therefore I give it to any parent who consults me.

        IMPORTANT:-I am a businessman with a language school in Monaco and a “home tuition” organisation operating in 30 different countries.See and!! The “SS” have never hurt me my family or my friends,but I hate injustice and hate even more the secret courts that steal children from loving parents.

        I first encountered these courts as a Kent County Councillor in 1960-66 applying for the discharge of care orders on behalf of parents in court against my own Council(before the Children Act 1989 stopped lay advisors from doing this) and I never lost a case!(see “History” later on ) That is why I NEVER take any money from parents for expenses or anything else.

        I often refund parents “travel expenses” so that PREGNANT women can escape to Ireland(no passports needed) and other European countries where there is NO FORCED ADOPTION.Whatever the facts of the case FORCED ADOPTION is always wrong so I will always help pregnant women to avoid having their babies snatched at birth to feed the ever greedy” adoption industry” When outraged lawyers,judges,and social workers accuse me of “meddling in complex family cases without knowing all the facts” My reply is to repeat once again that FORCED ADOPTION is always wrong no matter what the facts .”Emotional abuse “or worse still “risk of emotional abuse” are concepts met with incredulity on the continent and even when present can never be reason enough to confiscate children and send them for adoption by strangers.Please note I never send money in advance .I REFUND travel expenses to different European countries after the parent’s arrival there, and after I have examined court documents,discussed the case with a parent, and been sent a copy of the receipt for travel expenses.

      • towardchange says:

        I know of you or rather I have heard of you. Many researchers are needed. I have heard good and some bad of you, which is a good thing. Who wants to be labelled as perfect.

        I also have read about your history, from external sources as how you did get involved with helping parents and there is a Channel4 documentary revealing how you do help parents.

        Thank you!

    • towardchange says:

      By the way when I first got involved in care proceedings. I sacked my first lawyer who I have on good authority took money, another lawyer called and told me everything and everything he states is true. Then with my second lawyer I found an old blog by MP Hodge and read her recommendations and followed them, got my court bundle and sacked them too. Lastly, Ian I found your blogs and followed your instructions to a T apart from kidnapping my child if nothing else prevails. I did not do the latter, because I believed in justice and the wrongs of the council are wide and far, even the ECHR states ‘the matters I complain of are within their competence.

      I took the right route instead of going on the run. It is too late for me and I must continue the fight, but I would advise single parents in particular of African origin not to even come to Northamptonshire and play proactive in any shape or form, because they do not like this and they hate black people. The latter is displayed without shame. The Trayvon Martin case has brought race into the public eye; which is a good thing and let us not forget Stephen Lawerence. Based on factual evidence you mess with Northamptonshire local establishment the first thing they will do is illegally kidnap your child/ren. Please note, Northamptonshire police & social services, including Northampton Borough Council are labelled the worst in the country for good reason.

      Ian, I still do not agree with your views about the secrecy issue, but I do understand your outlook fully and you do present a case to support this and so do I. There has to be some degree of optimism and using whatever crumbs they give us as tools to fight back. If not we all might as well say, everybody give up and take the law into their own hands and do not leave any hostages.

      Ian at long last it is a pleasure conversing with you, for now I will bid you goodbye.

  3. peter oakes says:

    Please get a “grip” calm down ! it,s just water on the inferno to cool us all
    down a bit. As the lady said ” what no bread ? let them eat cake ”

    Now the serious bit ! the Co-Operative movement has a discrepancy in its accounts !
    about £ 1,5 billion ! The new conductor fiddling away in the Co-Op band is Euan Sutherland.
    ( sounds scottish re: RBS ). They have appointed Sir Kennedy. some one, former head of
    Standards in Public Life. ( what standards ? ) In other-words desperate cover -up.

    Now the Co-Op being ever the good guy with “ETHICS” “STANDARDS ” ” MORAL CONDUCT”
    wants to prevent their Bond holders from loosing all their money ! ( bit like Lloyds Insurance
    scam, asbestos etc. ) Where the Names lost their loot judges etc. using false names.

    Question : Does anyone know who are the Bond holders of the Co-Operative Society ?

    Because myself being a divy thought the Co_Op belonged to its members ! Me, You Joe Public.

    Answers please.

    Unless we all ask the wrong questions in All the Right places, We just might get a bit of
    respect from the arrogant assholes ! who firmly believe we are all totally stupid ! and they will
    continue to treat us with utter contempt !

    As mr.Snowden revealed the FBI, CIA, has been eavesdropping ( spying ) on us all for
    years ! so they Know who the paedos are plus the money laundering drug dealers etc.

  4. towardchange says:

    In interesting comment:
    “It has been said, more in jest than with justice, that “officials create work for other officials” and that bureaucracies generate work to justify their continued existence. Judges are not officials. The judiciary is not a bureaucracy. Nor is it in the business of earning by churning. … If the judgment in the court below is correct, this court can legitimately adopt and affirm it without any obligation to say the same things over again in different words. The losing party will be told exactly why the appeal was dismissed: there was nothing wrong with the decision appealed or the reasons for it.” Neumanns v. Adronikou [2013] EWCA (Civ) 916, 24 July 2013

  5. Munby plays a confidence trick !The cloak of secrecy in family courts will not be lifted simply
    The cloak of secrecy will not be lifted just
    because L.J Munby now says” judgements will in future be published unless there are compelling reasons not to do so .Who decides the reasons? Why the judges of course !

    1:-Judges will still find “compelling reasons” not to publish dodgy judgements.Their judgements are 99% in favour of local authorities so parents’ views will NOT be published

    2:-The public(including grandparents and relatives of parents) will still be excluded from family courts.

    3:-Mothers whose babies have been taken at birth will still be threatened with jail if they” go
    public”Forced adoption will uniquely in UK continue unabated so babies are” lost for life”

    4:- More children will still be taken for emotional abuse (or risk of it !) than those removed for both sex abuse and physical abuse added together;

    5:-The media will still be forbidden to name parents who want to protest openly and publicly

    6:-Children taken into care will still have their mobiles and laptops confiscated to isolate them from family and friends, Conversation with visiting parents will still be strictly censored

    7:-Children in care receiving visits will still be forbidden to report abuse by fosterers,care workers,or social workers,and nearly half will still end up in jail or as sex workers.

    8:-Agencies like Barnardos and N.F.A (founded by 2 social workers and sold for £130million+) will still make fortunes from recruiting fosterers and adoptive parents

    9:- Foreign visitors who are single parents here for a holiday or to meet with relatives will be prevented from returning home their children will still be taken for forced adoption.

    10:-Pregnant women fleeing the uk before any court proceedings start will still be tracked down in foreign countries by the SS who will snatch the children for forced adoption uk

    11:-Judges will continue to issue injunctions forbidding parents who have committed no crime from contacting directly or indirectly their own children for periods of many years.

    12:-PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME will continue to be inflicted on parents, as experts (called hired guns in the Ireland report)predict risk of harm to children who are then adopted.

    Nothing much will change…..

  6. Pingback: Contempt Of Court | Parents Rights Blog

  7. Pingback: Justice Is A Part Of The Human Makeup | Parents Rights Blog

  8. Pingback: Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia | Parents Rights Blog

  9. Pingback: Prohibition From Identifying Children | Parents Rights Blog

  10. towardchange says:

    Everything this man wrote is true!

  11. Pingback: Former Luzerne County Judge Mark A Ciavarella Jr To Remain In Prison For 28 Years | Parents Rights Blog

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.